Did the first debate end up changing anything?

posted at 9:21 pm on November 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

One last election wrap-up post to finish off a grim week. Dave Weigel went back and looked at the national electoral map generated by one poll-aggregation site as it stood on October 3, the day of the Mile High Massacre. Result: It looked … exactly like the eventual electoral map did. If you’re using 10/3 as your point A and 11/6 as your point B, you’re plotting a straight horizontal line.

But the polls, per RCP, did move a lot in those 33 days. Check out how Romney’s national numbers soared:

Who cares about the national numbers, though? They were wrong, weren’t they? Well, here’s what happened after the debate to the state polls in Virginia:

And in Florida:

And in Ohio:

Electoral analysts will be debating for years why Romney’s momentum stalled, whether it was debates two and three that cooled him down or whether debate one was a simple bounce like any other that was destined to fade or whether it was the, er, hurricane. But look again at the Ohio graph; he never quite grabbed the lead there, did he? In fact, in several key swing states, Romney never led in a single state poll after August, even during his post-debate surge. He never led in Nevada, never in Wisconsin, and never in Pennsylvania except for that one Susquehanna poll sponsored by the state Republican Party. In Michigan, he led exactly once. Even if he had maintained his momentum in the three states featured above — Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, worth a combined 60 electoral votes — and ended up winning them, he still would have lost the election very, very narrowly. That’s the sort of advantage that Obama had. In fact, let me share with you three of the more frightening paragraphs I’ve read this week:

The starting electoral map in 2012 offered Democrats 431 ways to win and 76 for the Republicans. This includes Wisconsin as a swing state, which I think we have learned it never really was, campaign bluster aside. Discounting that state, it was 230 ways for the Democrats to the Republican’s 26 (and that includes ties!). From the first day, 2012 was played entirely on the Republican side of the 50 yard line wether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Since 1992, New Hampshire has only gone red only once, in 2000. Similarly, Iowa has only gone for red once in 2004. Of the total 60 electoral votes during six election cycles, Republicans have only won 10 of them and it wasn’t even during the same election. Does ‘swing state’ really apply then, when you lose 85% of the time? With the base of states that Democrats have won in 6 straight elections of 247 and adding in New Hampshire and Iowa, it appears Democrats can routinely count on starting with 257 electoral votes, just 13 shy of a win.

Such a beginning electoral map would leave Republicans with 3 paths to the White House and one of them involves winning both Colorado and Nevada, states Democrats have now won twice in a row by fairly large margins.

This is what people mean when they say the GOP needs to “expand the map.” Not all of this is structural; the Examiner makes a good case that some of the reason Obama’s won two elections comfortably is Obama himself. Maybe young voters and black voters won’t turn out as much for a less charismatic, non-historic nominee. Maybe the Democratic ground game of 2016 won’t be quite as sophisticated as Obama’s once his staffers are no longer involved. My point, though, is that not everything has to go right for them. The Democrats have such a huge margin of error now that even if they had somehow fumbled away the big three above, they still win. Daunting.

For what it’s worth, GOP “insiders” polled by National Journal say they favor Marco Rubio in 2016. (Democratic insiders favor Jeb Bush.) Chris Christie finished fifth among them, behind even Rick Santorum, even though he leads in New Hampshire according to PPP’s first 2016 poll. After consulting extensively with my very sophisticated model, I project Christie’s odds at the nomination as being … low.

Marco Rubio? Really? Did we not see another baby faced republican barely cause a ripple? No matter how much the GOPe establishment pushes him, the vacuous senator from Florida will barely cause a ripple too.

Remember all those liberal newspapers who flipped their endorsements from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012? Totally a sign that Romney was tanking.

Oh and those pathetic Obama crowds & those huge ones for Romney with thousands waiting in the cold and rain to see him (that Obama only matched when Katy Perry or Jay-Z opened for him)? That was deliberate strategy on Obama’s part to lull the right into a false sense of momentum.

Finally, Obama in Iowa election eve slumped over the podium, rambling about this being his last race with tears streaming down his face while at the same time Romney in NH with a crowd of 12,000+ cheering so loudly when he came out that he couldn’t start speaking for 10 minutes? Never happened.

The first debate raised the possibility that Romney had some life in him. That was clear from the comments on this site. The next two debates made it clear he didn’t. Worse, it was Romney agreeing with Obama in which case, why bother upsetting the applecart?

Secondly, had the same Mitt showed up in Debates 2 and 3 that showed up on October 3rd…….yes he could have won.

PappyD61 on November 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I’m not so sure about this. There were several intertwined problems in this election. First, Romney depressed his own base. Secondly, there were major problems with the Republican turnout operation. It’s entirely possible that even if Romney’s lead in the polls was real, he might have still lost due to bad turnout. Obama overperformed on this and Romney underperformed.

So he might have have had a closer loss, but it would still likely have been a loss unless he’d lead by seven or more in every swing state.

The eSTAB-Conservatives-in-the-Back republicans pulled another McCain2008 surrender! They don’t want to listen and have decided to be Libs in repub clothing. They have no credibility left and no amount of finger pointing or blaming Conservatives, is going to change anything! The GOP is a sham. They’ve lost Evangelicals and Libertarians and will lose more in every election! The money will begin to run from them as they lose power, by losing votes!
Fight the Obama Enemy media or Kiss the Constitution Goodbye: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

It’s not about race, ethnicity, or age. It’s about ideas. I know most on here like to disparage him, but Ron Paul, an old white male, was most supported by the youth in the primaries. That’s because his ideas appealed to them.

Stop trying to re-think the package or the communication method. Those gimmicks might work on a temporary basis, but it won’t be lasting. Start trying to re-assess the ideas. Ask yourself: if you’re supposed to be the major party of liberty and freedom, why are you advocating for a government that dictates who can and can’t get married? I’m telling you, you may not like it or agree with it, but a lot of these women and youth are voting based on social issues. I personally think the fiscal issues are much, much more important, but you really need to re-assess whether or not you want to continue losing elections because you are opposed to the fact that two males or two females can have a marriage certificate.

The first debate raised the possibility that Romney had some life in him. That was clear from the comments on this site. The next two debates made it clear he didn’t. Worse, it was Romney agreeing with Obama in which case, why bother upsetting the applecart?

sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

The shadowy glimmer of a possible hint of a suspicion has entered my imagination that people weren’t paying attention. In weak argument with your “why bother upsetting the applecart” conclusion. I’m not sure what people have been doing, but maybe it had nothing to do with the political process at all or drawing any conclusions. Maybe many, many, many people were busy keeping up with the Kardashians.

Ron Paul is an unelectable nut who has the youth vote for his support of legalizing pot. Hardly Presidential material. Paul’s ideas about foreign policy are absurd and dangerous. He’s also a liar when it comes to earmarks. He didn’t win a single primary. So please let us end this rethink Ron Paul thing now before you look like a bigger idiot than you do now.

I am sorry but I think he did a fine job, what do you expect with a media gunning for any candidate we have? Romeny was not my choice but Obama was a worse choice. Who in holy hell was there telling the mediator she was lying? Noone. It is gross and sickening that the media can continue to lie but not only that the only way our candidates can get out their is to to debates and now that is screwed Burn it all. Don’t post much but just riley pissed off this week.

In weak argument with your “why bother upsetting the applecart” conclusion. I’m not sure what people have been doing, but maybe it had nothing to do with the political process at all or drawing any conclusions. Maybe many, many, many people were busy keeping up with the Kardashians.

Speaking of which, hope Kim’s OK.

Axe on November 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Thats absolutely true, but over coffee the next day they ask, ‘Hey, Jason did you catch that political thingie‘?
‘Yeah Bill, I did‘
‘They both just sat there babbling a lot and patting each other on the back‘.

There’s a lot of hand wringing going on and countless opinions about why Romney lost. I too have despaired that gaining the White House is a lost cause. But just before I drank the hemlock, I calmed down enough to conduct an historical analysis, and came across a fact that I believe trumps all else, which in turn gives me hope.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, and yes that means going back to William McKinley, only one time has a party gained the White House and was then promptly kicked out four years later: Carter, 1976-80. Keep in mind that it’s the party I’m referring to, not a particular candidate; Bush 41 doesn’t count because Reagan served two terms before him. Ford doesn’t count because he was completing Nixon’s second term. Hoover served one term after Coolidge, both of whom were Republicans, etc.

What’s clear is that the public clearly prefers to give a particular party, not necessarily a particular candidate, at least two terms to serve the country, the conventional wisdom being that four years is not enough time to accomplish goals and clean up inherited messes. All bets are off if the candidate or party is responsible for creating a colossal mess during its one and only term. Yes, I agree Obama has done that, but the public obviously believes Bush is more to blame for the recession. Carter couldn’t get a pass because the Iran hostage crisis was his doing alone and plagued him for well over a year. Not to mention that aside from being a horrible pessimistic president, he came up against a once in a lifetime candidate in Reagan.

So, come down off the ledge. Yes we need better candidates and have to confront changing demographics. But I don’t think that’s what did us in. History prevailed, and we can’t control that. The odds are much better next time.

Ron Paul is an unelectable nut who has the youth vote for his support of legalizing pot. Hardly Presidential material. Paul’s ideas about foreign policy are absurd and dangerous. He’s also a liar when it comes to earmarks. He didn’t win a single primary. So please let us end this rethink Ron Paul thing now before you look like a bigger idiot than you do now.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Happy, this is why your guys are losing these elections. You’re not seeing which way the wind is blowing. You discount all those youth who vote Paul saying they’re “potheads”. I’m telling you there’s more going on than that. There are many intelligent, free-thinking individuals who supported him. And, to be honest, I’ve never run across a Paul voter who supported him based on his drug stance. It’s not even about Paul, it’s about those ideas. He won’t run again. But, there will be more candidates like him. Keep denigrating them all you like. But, you’re only turning more and more people off and hurting yourself.

I am sorry but I think he did a fine job, what do you expect with a media gunning for any candidate we have? Romney was not my choice but Obama was a worse choice. Who in holy hell was there telling the mediator she was lying? Noone. It is gross and sickening that the media can continue to lie but not only that the only way our candidates can get out their is to to debates and now that is screwed Burn it all. Don’t post much but just riley pissed off this week.

mnkatie on November 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Who was telling Candy she was lying? CBS was suppressing part of their interview with Obama on 9/12/12 that PROVED both she & Obama were lying.

But yeah, Obama being reelected was because of Romney. /s

The MSM is the true enemy here, not Mitt Romney. Shamefully many don’t seem to want to come to grips with that.

He sat on his cards while Obama ran the deck with a press whore named Candy. Romney walked into a weak trap. One easily dealt with. And froze. “Then why did the President blame it on a video Ms Crowly? Do you have that transcript at hand? What other transcripts did you bring with you?” He should have gone Reagan.

ok I may be naive but if the media is lying about things can’t they be sued, isn’t there some fix? You cant just go out there and lie. There has to be a fix for this has to be a class action lawsuit lawyer salivating over this. Is the media regualted in anyway? now I am just being cute.

I guess I wasn’t clear. There is nothing sane about Paul’s shut down the military and become isolationists positions. Any young person who supports these ideas is probably so addled from drugs they won’t remember to vote. I’m not averse to getting the youth fired up but it will not happen with a loon like Ron Paul.

I guess I wasn’t clear. There is nothing sane about Paul’s shut down the military and become isolationists positions. Any young person who supports these ideas is probably so addled from drugs they won’t remember to vote. I’m not averse to getting the youth fired up but it will not happen with a loon like Ron Paul.

Happy Nomad on November 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I’m sorry, my friend. But I have to disagree. I’m former military and I work on a military base. There is quite a bit of support here for his positions. He doesn’t believe in shutting down the military. He believes in using it for defense. But, all of this has been discussed and debated many times on this site. I’m not interested in re-litigating all of that. I’ll leave it alone since I’m not going to change your mind. I’ll just say that it’s my belief that until you re-assess your thinking in this area, you’re probably going to continue losing these big elections.

The MSM is the true enemy here, not Mitt Romney. Shamefully many don’t seem to want to come to grips with that.

Dark Star on November 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Well, we knew that since 2008, why didn’t team Romney know? Who was his advisors? We cant wish the media monster away.

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Willard’s advisers are/were Massachusetts RINOs who survive by abandoning conservatism. Mr. Etch a Sketch Eric Fehrstrom and his Shawmut Group were central in concocting a communications strategy. They would never in a trillion years confront the media, neither would Willard. Live by the Media, die by the Media.

Told you the establishment are already pushing Rubio and Bush. These people play the long game. They probably have already gamed out 2020 for Kristi Noem after she wins some state office like Governor or Senator in 2014 or 2016.

The Obama people and the entire media were crapping bricks from the time of the first debate until the day of the election.

You could see the complete desperation. It was the look of a defeated President and a failed administration and all of their supporters realizing they were going down in defeat. Obama’s last two debate performances were like that of a beaten boxer whose corner knew he was badly behind on points.

Even I, who eviscerated Romney up until the Convention and disagreed with the choices he made with his campaign, could see that the White House was beaten.

Something changed with the Hurricane, but I think that was the media attempting to create a narrative in which Obama benefited by the hurricane, and I think that’s false. And I think people pushing the Hurricane as the turnaround are just trying to cover something rotten after the fact.

The truth is, the country assessed the leadership of Obama and gave him a fail, and Romney did make his case to the country that he was an acceptable alternative.

You want to win a nationwide presidential election? Promise to kill FICA tax! Let some math wunderkinds whip up a scientific-looking model chock full of lingo and buzzwords and flashy figures, and send it to pundits and papers, but pound the idea of NO MORE INCOME TAXES from every pulpit. If voters of every age, shape, and skin hue love anything, it is 1) simplicity, and 2) their money, so it’s the ultimate winning message.

The fact that people support Jeb Bush is beyond me. Also, Rick Santorum for realz.. I guess people liked the war in womenz and lady parts. Rubio, I get on superficial merits, but he also has two years experience and no accomplishments.. and I don’t think he’s going to get the historic candidate treatment like Obama. Also, the wrong type of Latino, but since the Cuban Americans are now race voting, I guess we need him to shore up them.

Romney defined himself with the 47%percent comment he was CAUGHT making to donors behind closed doors … that was the blunder that cost him the election except it was what he truly believes ( even though eventually he gave up on it when he saw how it was sinking him ) his problem was he was exposed before the American public …more voters wanted The Obama vision not the Romney vision … but don’t worry right wing /repubs what really matters is Romney had an enthusiastic crowd in Cincinnati last week … that’s what counts …

If the GOP elects Marco Rubio in 2016 I am not voting. And I am in Virginia, a major swing state. If the GOP elects a hispanic as a way to attract hispanics, something that will never work, the party is finished. The GOP will have affirmed every stereotype liberals paint on us. We are a white party who sees minorities are not voting for us, so we say “well lets get us one of those brown ones to run on our side”. Thats not how you attract votes. No extra hispanics are going to vote GOP because there is a Hispanic on the ticket. Its condescending to think so.

Maybe young voters and black voters won’t turn out as much for a less charismatic, non-historic nominee.

Maybe someone should tell the GOP that before they sell away the party forever with amnesty. I mean, Biden will likely be the next candidate. Not that it matters who wins at this point anyway, because that ship sailed on Tuesday, but does anyone think there’s going to be a massive turnout for Joe Biden?

What you say is interesting, but that first debate was a sea-change. A man who was sold to the country as a wunderkind was completely undressed and exposed. The entire country tuned in and realized finally just who was responsible for the giant pile of crap on the floor that’s been stinking the place up for four years.

In the wake of those unbelievable results from Tuesday, millions of votes less for Romney than McCain, people are going back and attempting to rewrite history so it conforms with the present.

If the GOP elects Marco Rubio in 2016 I am not voting. And I am in Virginia, a major swing state. If the GOP elects a hispanic as a way to attract hispanics, something that will never work, the party is finished. The GOP will have affirmed every stereotype liberals paint on us. We are a white party who sees minorities are not voting for us, so we say “well lets get us one of those brown ones to run on our side”. Thats not how you attract votes. No extra hispanics are going to vote GOP because there is a Hispanic on the ticket. Its condescending to think so.

thphilli

Dude, you’re not going to vote for the Republican candidate anyway, no matter what, lol.

Yeah.. Axelrod troll.. and we support giving them it. That’s why I support going off the fiscal cliff. Then the Obama voters will have to pay more taxes and get less free stuff. That won’t be very fun when they can’t use the gov’t as their personal ATM.

Romney defined himself with the 47%percent comment he was CAUGHT making to donors behind closed doors …

U2denver on November 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM

The comments hurt, as did the negative ads run against Romney during the summer, but Romeny’s first debate negated most of that. People could see with their own eyes that Romney was not the man portrayed by those ads.

Romney defined himself with the 47%percent comment he was CAUGHT making to donors behind closed doors … that was the blunder that cost him the election except it was what he truly believes ( even though eventually he gave up on it when he saw how it was sinking him ) his problem was he was exposed before the American public …more voters wanted The Obama vision not the Romney vision … but don’t worry right wing /repubs what really matters is Romney had an enthusiastic crowd in Cincinnati last week … that’s what counts …

U2denver on November 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Second debate: Meh. Hes gonna lose just to save Obama’s face. And why doesn’t he get into Bengazai? Oh, he’s gonna save it for the third debate, since that’s the one about foreign policy!! He’s gonna kill him then! (Cause I know even I could.)

Third debate: Fix is in. “We’re almost exactly alike (except about apologizing), and there was no Bengazai.”

Okay, I don’t REALLY believe the fix was in for Obama to win, but there really is no other reasonable explanation.

I’ve watched our guys concede before the game’s over in two presidential elections now, and it really is hard to believe the whole thing isn’t fixed.

Even before the election fraud. Which I believe was huge and sophisticated.

Romney defined himself with the 47%percent comment he was CAUGHT making to donors behind closed doors …

IQ2denver

And Obama defined himself when he said poor people are too stupid to dress themselves and can’t read a clock. The only difference is our side is full of cowards, and refuses to do what it takes to win.

If Romney had won on Tuesday, would Harry Reid be saying we now have to do the repubs bidding because the voters have spoken? Um, that would be a hell no. But republicans and Boehner on the other hand can’t capitulate soon enough.

sartana …a little reality check … President Obama has won 4 more years …it has already been shown one of key reasons voters chose President Obama over Romney was they thought Obama had more empathy and concern for the middle and lower economic classes … Romney’s 47% comment cemented this feeling in the voters ..

sartana …a little reality check … President Obama has won 4 more years …it has already been shown one of key reasons voters chose President Obama over Romney was they thought Obama had more empathy and concern for the middle and lower economic classes … Romney’s 47% comment cemented this feeling in the voters ..

U2denver on November 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Yes, but Romney was right. He told the truth. So, if the voters held that against him, that’s their problem, not his.

Romney was on the way to hitting Obama hard in the 2nd debate, until Candy Crowley cut him off. BTW, how did it happen that she just happened to have a transcript of Obama’s Nov. 12 speech with her? And how was she so knowledgeable about the EXACT wording that Obama used in that speech, that she could later say that Romney was “technically” wrong, while being right in spirit? And why did Obama not even try to defend himself, but instead urged Romney to “continue?” It was a set-up all the way. She turned the course of the election, just like Katie Couric did in 2008 with her hatchet job editing of Sarah Palin.

Marco Rubio as the candidate will be such a ridiculous failure its not even comical. Hispanics will correctly see that the GOP just chose a brown person because they want Hispanics to vote for one of their own kind. A retarded person could see that for what it is.

What a lot of people are forgetting, is that there were three choices on the ballot, Obama, Romney, and stay at home. Democratic early voting taking place almost entirely before Hurricane Sandy was down very measurably over 2008, while Republican voting was up across the board. The Republican voting is probably due mostly to the Romney campaign improving this aspect of their campaign over John McCain, but the only explanation for the drop in Democratic early vots was a drop in enthusiasm.

Then, Hurricane Sandy hit, and Obama had a week where he could look Presidential and Bi-Partison by appearing next to Chris Christie.

Two things happened in the polls when this happened. First, Independents momentarily moved away from Romney. Only by a few points, but polls did clearly show that a small numbers of Independents votes wavered between Romney and Obama. It’s hard to say how many returned to Romney exactly, because we don’t know how many independents he would’ve won without Hurricane Sandy, but even an extra percentage point or two would’ve made a difference in Florida at least.

The other thing that happened, is that polls showed a sudden spike in enthusiasm among democrats for Obama. I think is why Democratic turnout was so much higher than everyone expected. Previously Republican enthusiasm was shown to be at or slightly above 2008 levels, where-as Democratic enthusiasm was markedly down. Afterward, both parties were shown to be about as enthusiastic as they were in 2008, and low and behold both parties showed up at near 2008 levels.

The only group that didn’t show up at 2008 levels, were Independents. Independent turnout was down substantially from 2008. This suggests that the race became so negative that a chunk of the middle just tuned out entirely. This likely explains some of the missing White Vote. Coincidentally, had Independents turned out like they did in 08, Romney would’ve won narrowly. I think this is a substantial reason why Obama engaged in such negative advertising, to get his own base motivated and to keep the independent vote at home. After the mid-terms he knew he wasn’t going to win independents, so suppressing that vote was of immense value.

So, what happened with hurricane Sandy, is that it showed him is a positive enough light to get at least some additional democrats to vote on election day, boosting democratic turnout.

The reason I dismiss the RCP state polls, is because they always assumed high democratic turnout, and until the very last few days of the campaign there simply was never indication that democratic turnout would be that high.

The other reason I dismiss them, is because the bulk of the polls over-estimated Obama’s strength in most of these states. In several of these states, Obama ended up winning only very narrowly, and even the slightest nudge in any of these states could have just as easily sent them into Romney’s column. As close as they were, it seems unlikely that Romney wasn’t leading them, if only narrowly, before Obama’s last minute bump, yet the state poll averages assert it never happened.

Look, fact of the matter is, that each poll was guessing on turnout, but turnout itself isn’t a constant static number. There’s a good chance that, had the election happened three were earlier, or three weeks later, we would have seen significantly different turnout. In fact turnout may have been different if the election had even happened two days later.

I simply don’t buy the assertion that turnout was ALWAYS going to be sky high in these states, not with Republican enthusiasm as high as it was. Turnout was at least in part a product of timing, therefore the RCP polls could have just as easily been dead wrong.